News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lucinda said:
Question for legal experts -- do the rules of legal disclosure apply in any way to in this situation (i.e. at a preliminary hearing for a third party)?
Click to expand...

Are you asking whether Rob will see the case against Lisi in advance? I don't think that's how it works. Disclosure is made so that an accused can mount a full defence to the charges against them. Rob is only being asked to provide testimony to the court. He's not there to defend himself against anything, so he doesn't need to preview the Crown's case. Many years ago, I witnessed a stabbing and was subpoenaed to testify at the accused's prelim. The cops showed up at my door one morning, gave me the papers and I went to court on the appointed day. I had no clue what I was going to be asked or what the details of the case were. (As it turned out, the court mostly wanted to know if I could identify the alleged stabber. I couldn't with any certainty because it was night and I saw the event from several yards away. I wasn't called when the case went to trial.)
 
Sweet Mister said:
He will have his attorney present and both sides get to see his testimony.

The real jeopardy for RoFo is that he doesn't know what TPS knows and Giroux will be very careful not to tip his hand, but lead RoFo carefully into the danger areas.

And RoFo can't take the fifth because Canada doesn't have it. You still have to testify, but in certain circumstances (probably not these I think) it can't be used against you. Perjury rules still apply.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but if you look at the wording of Section 13 of the Charter I think it would apply to Lisi's preliminary hearing:

Section 13 of the Charter said:
A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Click to expand...

So the question is are preliminary hearings considered proceedings? A google search gave me this result from Dubois v. The Queen [1985] which contains the following:

Dubois v. The Queen (1985) said:
The word "proceedings" in s. 13 , means, in a criminal case, all judicial steps taken upon one charge to resolve and reach a final conclusion of the issue therein raised between the same party and the Crown. This would include the preliminary hearing, the trial, and an appeal and a new trial.
Click to expand...

They might be able to get Ford on perjury and it might hurt him politically but nothing Ford says at Lisi's hearing can be used to incriminate Ford in a case against him because a case against Ford would be a separate proceeding and therefore Section 13 of the Charter would apply.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
Are you asking whether Rob will see the case against Lisi in advance? I don't think that's how it works. Disclosure is made so that an accused can mount a full defence to the charges against them. Rob is only being asked to provide testimony to the court. He's not there to defend himself against anything, so he doesn't need to preview the Crown's case. Many years ago, I witnessed a stabbing and was subpoenaed to testify at the accused's prelim. The cops showed up at my door one morning, gave me the papers and I went to court on the appointed day. I had no clue what I was going to be asked or what the details of the case were. (As it turned out, the court mostly wanted to know if I could identify the alleged stabber. I couldn't with any certainty because it was night and I saw the event from several yards away. I wasn't called when the case went to trial.)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Cooper.

-- On tomorrow's episode of The Canadian Legal System Explained, with Rob, Doug, Hotmail, Rat, and the contributors to UT -- tips on avoiding that hot, sweaty, flush, dishonest look while on the stand.
 
Last edited:
dforthandbview said:
Here's hoping he'll be a private citizen when he takes the stand. No more politics involved.
Click to expand...

Yes, but let's not forget that RoFo has his eyes on the Prime Minister's chair. Even if he is a private citizen in March (dear god, please let it be so), any fallout from his court appearances will hopefully make a future political comeback (even more) impossible.
 
So DoFo's holding a scrum about the subpoena.

Rob Ford Must Go ‏@robfordmustgo 35s
Doug trying to spin subpoena release as payback, the Star, police chief, blah blah. He's off, shaky. Tries to divert to Sugar Beach. /CC
 
Soop said:
So DoFo's holding a scrum about the subpoena.

Rob Ford Must Go ‏@robfordmustgo 35s
Doug trying to spin subpoena release as payback
Click to expand...

Ummm - THAT might just be the sinker to the Ford campaign - he just insinuated the Chief's contract not being renewed was RoFo's doing (we all knew that but nobody had any real proof that was the case - THANKS DOUG!).
 
Doug was just on CP24 -- he was asked about the subpoena. He quickly pivoted the question to a criticism of the police, regarding the fact that the impending subpoena was leaked to the press, and tried to imply a link between Blair and the leak. He did not address the subpoena itself and what it means to RoFo at all.

He then quickly changed the discussion to Sugar Beach and councillor expenses.

Mr. Bluster and Bravado did not seem comfortable *at all* discussing the subpoena :)

(Soop just posted pretty much the same.)
 
I'm gonna miss Daniel:

Daniel Dale @ddale8 · 4m
Doug Ford also suggests that the Toronto Star serve Rob Ford with his subpoena, because we are obviously in cahoots with Chief Blair.

Daniel Dale @ddale8 · 5m
Doug Ford claims a poll showing Ford at 23% means he is on "the upswing" from a poll showing him at 22%.
 
themarc said:
Ummm - THAT might just be the sinker to the Ford campaign - he just insinuated the Chief's contract not being renewed was RoFo's doing (we all knew that but nobody had any real proof that was the case - THANKS DOUG!).
Click to expand...

He's also suggesting the Star should serve the subpoena to Rob because it is in league with Blair. The old 'conspiracy' gambit again.
 
I wonder if the TPS is still listening to RoFo's phone calls. Wouldn't it be hysterical if they had record of the Mayor directing his Service Board minions to dump the Chief.
 
Lucinda said:
Doug was just on CP24 -- he was asked about the subpoena. He quickly pivoted the question to a criticism of the police, regarding the fact that the impending subpoena was leaked to the press, and tried to imply a link between Blair and the leak. He did not address the subpoena itself and what it means to RoFo at all.

He then quickly changed the discussion to Sugar Beach and councillor expenses.

Mr. Bluster and Bravado did not seem comfortable *at all* discussing the subpoena :)
Click to expand...

So that's their "strategy": put out a couple of tweets of outrage about old news and then follow up with bluster and bravado on that while completely dodging the real questions.
 
two visions pop into my head re: the subpoena...

RoFo sulking, arms crossed "if you can't hand it to me, i didn't receive it" ... and a flashback to some personal injury lawyer ad that used to play in the daytime on one of the Buffalo stations: "We'll only go to court if its aaaaaaaaabsolutely necessary."

I may have watched too much tv growing up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top